Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > Fred Read wrote:
> > [MySQL is easier to install & configure than Informix]
> > ...
> You left out: "Writing the application that will use the
> database," which I believe was the orginal posters point.
I covered this point to a certain extent in my ODBC comments.
> There are a large number of applications that rely on specific
> functionality being present. Some of this functionality
> (sub-selects, transactions, etc.) is simply not present
> in MySQL.
Point taken, but many of these things can be worked around
without the massive performance penalties...
> > [ODBC allows MySQL to work with MANY apps these days]
> > ...
> ODBC isn't a panacea. It also doesn't perform as well when
> compared to making native SQL calls. Why would anyone want
> to cripple performance by using ODBC?
I agree with you, I go to great lengths to avoid it wherever
I can but for many applications you can implement a solution
using ODBC and MySQL.
Take, for example, the Microsoft Windows platform:
A Client/Server database app talking to a MySQL server using
ODBC will generally outperform the same app talking to Access
directly! So, why would anyone want to cripple performance by
using Access?
I don't wish to turn this into a "MS bashing session" but you
can see my point - millions of users use Access every day.
Wouldn't it be nice if only one percent switched to MySQL?
--
If it ain't opinionated, it ain't Rich Teer.
